Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

jfruh writes "Faced with an Apple vs. Motorola lawsuit that involves 180 claims and counterclaims across 12 patents, a judge in Florida has thrown up his hands and accused both companies of acting in bad faith. Claiming the parties' were engaged in 'obstreperous and cantankerous conduct', he said that the lawsuit was part of 'a business strategy that appears to have no end.'"

Noting his posting time is exactly same as article posting time, his lack of subscriber status to explain this and his comment history it's probably the same pro-MS/anti-Google troll/shill that was here several months ago.

Never got whether he's really that stupid or does he simply get a kick out of this.

Note to everyone who hasn't RTFA: There is no page two, even though there's a link to page two. It's not a bad article but ending it on page 1 with a link to page two is shoddy as hell and whoever owns that site should be bitch slapped.

Who owns Motorola Mobility? Google does! Seriously, even reading the comment you're replying to would have told you he was making a sarcastic remark telling Motorola and its owner, Google, to be more like the other litigant, Apple.

a judge can reassign his caseload however he wants until retirement in many jurisdictions, and in all of them if the head of judicial assignments also thinks it's noise. it is far more common to dismiss for frivolity or abuse of the system. but then the t1t vs. tat lawsuits pop up somewhere else. if a Federal judge ices the case, it's not going to bite anybody.

And they should ALL be kissing Palm's ass because they were there first!

fuck guys how old is the saying "standing on the shoulders of giants" anyway? the entire history of tech is one guy ripping somebody else off and doing it better, frankly that scene in Pirates of Silicon Valley could have described ALL of the electronics industry, because there Jobs was bitching about Gates doing the same damned thing he did which was rip off Xerox. they ALL do it, they ALL see an idea somebody else had and make a bet

Maybe Olivetti?
http://fjkraan.home.xs4all.nl/comp/m10/guide/m10ug_toc.html [xs4all.nl]
(though this isn't the one I was looking for, but still a 'portable computing device', they also did a far smaller version running a 286 with a very basic gui, but I can't remember the name of it now).
With keyboard/without, it's all portable/refining the tech surely?

He is entirely correct. But this is what the US patent and court system has brought things to. There is no substantial downside to patent litigation for companies of this size. Even if you lose, you win, because you've forced your competitor through the legal defense ordeal.

Patents and Copyright are Government granted temporary monopoly's over that which has been patented or is under copyright.Was originally granted to spur more creation of these things to enrich the public domain.Problem is the temporary part has been massively subverted. Now almost nothing ever makes it into the public domain.

Patents and copyrights have different rules, and different issues. The never-expiring issue is copyrights; the problem with patents is the massive increase in scope, and lowering of the bar, of what can be patented, so that now, even obvious and trivial modifications result in being granted a monopoly.

In addition, though, technological progress has been speeding up over time. A 20-year expiration for patents may have made sense in the late 1700s, but it hardly makes sense in most modern industries, and especially computer hardware/software.

Dishevel wrote:
Patents and Copyright are Government granted temporary monopoly's over that which has been patented or is under copyright.
Was originally granted to spur more creation of these things to enrich the public domain.
Problem is the temporary part has been massively subverted. Now almost nothing ever makes it into the public domain.
Some Anonymous Coward ass wrote:
As I'm sure you're not a native speaker, let me help you with your studies. "Monopoly's" refers to something owned by a monopoly, as

Except this game(sic) as you put it did not exist [in the mobile sphere], everyone got along and licensed their patents to each other through FRAND, and them Steve Jobs with a few weak obvious interface patents and a few basic shape design patents...and a first out of gate [apart from that other phone] product, ever since then its been Apple patent raping one end of the phone industry to get the to sell Windows Phones [Seriously WTF?] to Microsoft patent raping them at the other to get them to License Windo

FRAND parents are licensed out to other people in the parent pool for a reasonable price. What parents have Apple put in the pool to make them a contributor, and thus eligible for FRAND prices? None? That's what I thought.

So... You think Apple should get FRAND welfare because... they didn't contribute anything?

Are you really an idiot? I wouldn't think so. But all evidence here is looking pretty grim for you.

Let me make this ever more crystal clear than it was in the last message. FRAND PRICES ARE FOR ANYONE.

It's not welfare you fool. The whole point of FRAND is, AGAIN, so that ANY COMPANY ON EARTH can build stuff using a standard and have license fees be a known quantity - because they are reasonable and NON-DISCRIMINAT

FRAND is an agreement among the in-group to increase their ability to compete with those not a member of the in-group. It serves little, if any, other function. Who gets to determine what's a fair and reasonable price? It's not you if you don't have deep pockets.

everyone got along and licensed their patents to each other through FRAND...right up until Apple came along and started making so much money that companies that had licensed out patents at reasonable terms to everyone else demanded Apple pay far more. Thus making a mockery of FRAND.

How exactly did they start making so much money?

Oh yes, by selling millions of the same product, thats how. In which case it is entirely right that the FRAND licence they pay is much higher than the licence that someone who will only sell a few thousand products pays.

Then there is also the problem that Apple made for themselves. They could have gone to Nokia up front and licenced the stuff they needed for mobile phone radio communications up front like everyone else. While the iPhone was still a speculative

Oh yes, by selling millions of the same product, thats how. In which case it is entirely right that the FRAND licence they pay is much higher than the licence that someone who will only sell a few thousand products pays.

Until we see punishment for such business practices, they'll continue to be profitable. As long as they're profitable, companies will continue to use such business practices.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that judges are also seeing the idiocy that certain policies seem to lead to, but given how these companies sometimes even blatantly disregard the courts... They'll just find a different patent and sue in a different court system until they get their money back.

Until we see punishment for such business practices, they'll continue to be profitable.

The submitter editorialized a bit in using the words "bad faith".If the judge had actually declared that there was bad faith, there are appropriate sanctions, including attorneys fees and dismissal/winning the case.

I can't see how Motorola's using the lawsuit as a business strategy. They didn't file it, they don't want to be in court, and they have no choice about showing up or about what claims they have to defend against. I'm getting more and more annoyed at judges who get mad at defendants for having the temerity to stand up and defend themselves against the claims the plaintiff has made. If their defenses are meritless, then just rule so and be done with it. If they aren't meritless, then the blame for any complexity lies with the party making the claims, not the defense.

I can't see how Motorola's using the lawsuit as a business strategy. They didn't file it, they don't want to be in court, and they have no choice about showing up or about what claims they have to defend against. I'm getting more and more annoyed at judges who get mad at defendants for having the temerity to stand up and defend themselves against the claims the plaintiff has made. If their defenses are meritless, then just rule so and be done with it. If they aren't meritless, then the blame for any complexity lies with the party making the claims, not the defense.

Agreed. A defendant can either choose to do nothing but repel the arguments, or use the existing lawsuit to bring charges of their own in hopes of at least reducing the damages if not removing them entirely and getting paid instead. The blame must lay with the originator, in this case Apple.

From the article: "The lawsuit was filed by Motorola in January last year..."

It's only one page, and does not take long to read.

The title of the action is "Apple v. Motorola", which means that Apple is the one who file the first lawsuit in the action; per protocol it's Plaintfiff v. Defendant. Motorola may have filed what is left, but only after Apple already filed.

And while TFA doesn't specially mention the official name of the suit, everyone tracked by Groklaw that I am aware of has Apple listed first.

You're saying that like the whole Apple-Moto spat started in January last year... It's been going on for way longer than that, and it's an unending war of suit and countersuit which originated from Apple's bullying.

Apple lovers start by refusing to acknowledge anything negative about their beloved company, believing that no technology existed before Apple invented it, and then work from the premise that everybody else is a rip-off artist.

I can't see how Motorola's using the lawsuit as a business strategy. They didn't file it, they don't want to be in court, and they have no choice about showing up or about what claims they have to defend against. I'm getting more and more annoyed at judges who get mad at defendants for having the temerity to stand up and defend themselves against the claims the plaintiff has made. If their defenses are meritless, then just rule so and be done with it. If they aren't meritless, then the blame for any complexity lies with the party making the claims, not the defense.

The summary is wrong.

It's Motorola Mobility v. Apple, not Apple v. Motorola Mobility.

Motorola filed a lawsuit against Apple over patent violations in 2010, and expanded it in 2011 (with Google's permission as the Motorola-Google acquisition happened in the meantime) over more patents. Apple then charged Motorola (then) with patent violations as well.

Motorola Mobility LLC v. Apple Inc., 12cv20271, U.S. District Court for the District of Florida (Miami)

": Apple did not invent rounded corners."They where the foist to use it in a tablet. The type of patent they got for that is to prevent other people from making a device that looks the same to ride off Apple coat tails.granted, there shouldn't be design patetnt, their should be design 'trademarks'.

Patent lawsuits are not *always* bullshit. Some lawsuits are completely legitamite.

Ni! I say, Ni at you! Patent lawsuits are *always* bullshit. There are no Geniuses. There are only "individuals ordinarily skilled in the art". Edison did not invent the light bulb, he improved it with argon. Tesla did not invent A/C. Bell did not invent the Telephone. You have no Geniuses. That is wool in your eyes.

Let me tell you how patents are made. An individual ordinarily skilled in the arts, charged with creating solutions to problems as a requirement of their very employment, goes about

As a design engineer, I had the choice of either searching the patent database or not, and sometimes the choice was made deliberately. Violating someone else's patent makes my company vulnerable to damages, but knowingly violating opens up the possibility of triple damages. So, subject to management advice and my judgement, I either design without looking, or look and then design in a manner to avoid infringing. I never incorporate patented material into my design, te

Can we stop pretending that Motorola is a separate company. It's Google. Motorola is now just a brand owned by Google. The company calling the shots is Google.

Google may own Motorola Mobility, but as part of that they agreed to having a hands-off management approach. So no, Google is not necessarily calling the shots at Motorola, and most of these lawsuits (as far MS, Apple, and Motorola are concerned) were brought before Google purchased Motorola - or as result of actions before Google purchased Motorola. Motorola had been trying to get them to pay up for nearly a decade or so.

I don't know anything about the case really, and I don't care much about it either...

But my impression at this point is that Motorola filed suit over their existing hardware patents. Apple then counter sued based on their own "patents".

In my last 8 or so years on this earth, one thing I have learned about the legal system is that, when faced with a law suit you are certainly guilty of, it is standard procedure to counter-sue based on whatever random shit you can come up with, valid or not. Several years a

That had the scrolly features patched away because of one of these lawsuits and sees what kind of bullshit this is. This quite literally happened to one of my friends phones after all this debacle about using the finger to scroll shit.

The judge should ask Apple if it plans to be in business 200 years from today.When Apple says yes, the judge should suspend the suit and schedule another hearing in 100 years.To an immortal corporation, a "speedy trial" can easily be measured in centuries.

As time goes on it seems that Googles Patent buy is looking better and better value. With Motorola streamlined, its phones finally with 4.x software on, an exciting launch of the X phone to look forward to, and its nice to hear that they can effectively stand up against patent rapists Apples.

Sounds like a sensible response from the judge.
But what is the long term solution here?
Maybe there needs to be a mechanism for disallowing "obvious" ideas to be patented.
But then there is the problem of defining what is "obvious".
There must be some pretty boring/bored patent lawyers out there.

The judge should just schedule one claim at a time for status conferences, lets say once a month, with mandatory attendance of all parties. That's 15 years of monthly trips to Florida, if everybody shows up every time. After a couple years I'm sure the lawyers will have worked it out.

Do you feel the Microsoft Windows Phone licensing model fits this royalty and licensing model you suggest? Many on Slashdot claimed that the licensing approach they deployed was simply extortion to increase the cost of Android to match Windows Phone.

Fairly pricing your royalty and licensing costs for patents have always been an issue, a la Xerox. Of course, that's sort of exactly what the patent system is designed to enable - it grants a temporary monopoly to a business in exchange for public disclosure of

Claiming the parties' were engaged in 'obstreperous and cantankerous conduct', he said that the lawsuit was part of 'a business strategy that appears to have no end.'

Motorola lawyer: Yeah.Apple lawyer: And?Judge:*long pause**deep sigh* Very well. *gets up, starts walking towards lawyers* I believe, at this point, I am legally permitted, by the great State of Florida, to dope-slap the both of you. Not only am I permitted to do so, I may be legally required as well, something I am not about to question. Please turn around.

I believe, at this point, I am legally permitted, by the great State of Florida, to dope-slap the both of you. Not only am I permitted to do so, I may be legally required as well, something I am not about to question. Please turn around.

That's no dope slap!

Overhead:

Why does this dope slap feel like a prostate exam with your hands on my shoulders?

This is why we're supposed to try patent infringement cases in East Texas - by contrast to TFA, justices there love it when patent lawyers use the courtroom as a vehicle to advance their employers' business strategy. Was the docket full? Or else how did the defendant manage to get the venue changed?

Simple solution: make patents (and copyrights) only worth a limited amount. $100K, $1million, pick a number. The patent (or copyright) is only good until you've reached that amount of income from any source (INCLUDING LAWSUITS).

Just for fun, no company worth more than $100K should be allowed to own a patent (or copyright).

Now *that* will spur creation of new ideas, not hoarding a ridiculous legal battles that clog the system.

Patent trolls: dead.
Greedy companies: dead.
Small companies: in with a fig

Just for fun, no company worth more than $100K should be allowed to own a patent (or copyright)

Patent Troll company has net worth of $90,000.
Patent Troll company gets judgement of $500 million.
Patent Troll company distributes $500 million to its owners
Patent Troll company has net worth of $90,000.
Profit!

How can lawyers get even richer if they can't set up laws that generate legal conflict?

Except this is little to do with Lawyers, and everything to do with Steve Jobs protecting Apple from being out innovated by Android, a market that made it the richest company on earth with a market cap of over $400 Billion and $140Billion sat around in cash. The Lawyers are a trivial expense, of what the Judge rightly calls a bushiness strategy.